Bennie makes a good point.

TOLERANCE of the "Nether" kind, has now led to BACKLASH of the Redneck kind... well actually it just government policy, rather than mobs in the streets, and that is how it should be. BUT... if the government did NOT act.. it would be mobs.

HO-HUM rebukes me (I hate that nick of yours I always have this vision of 'rolling eyes' when I read it :)
for 'longing for a day gone by' when in fact I'm writing a new chapter in the book. The "days" hohum thinks I long for had some serious deficiencies which I prefer to avoid.

TRTL makes an interesting point. But regarding a 'State Religion' and a predominant religion recognized by the state and reflected in some of its rituals are not the same thing.

Ultimately it boils down to the level of energy and passion that 'the people' have for their heritage. An example is the opening of Parliament with the Lords Prayer.. a distinctly "Christian" thing, but NOT a specific denominational thing, thus Catholic and Protestant alike can identify with it. But NOT Muslims, Buddhists, Hindu's etc.. though to some of these it just does not matter because such things are not part of their own faiths.

I could never justify or even promote the Lords Prayer opening on 'Christian' grounds, there are none. I can only support it in a "cultural" way. Opening parliament with righteousness so a pack of sinners can discuss how to excercise 'greed' and self interest in the name of 'National Interest' is probably something God would frown upon.

So 'how' should religion and politics mix ? A hard one. For non Anglican Protestants it could only be discussed on a cultural level, for Catholics, and Protestants aah..thats different, history of England and Ireland come into play and the very nature of the traditions named.

Secularism ? that gives us Bob Brown and the slippery moral slope he would take us down. (xxx rated porn, free heroin, but lots and LOTS of trees)

BOAZ said:

CONCLUSION. It is just as valid to work towards a 'monocultural' Australia as it was to make it 'multi'cultural.

So im going to add my 2 bobs worth.

I know these are topics dear to Boaz, so I wont get rowdy mate. Actually I’ll probably be centrist. And to that end I note the new positions being taken up on ‘multiculti’ (saw that somewhere else).

This centrism, if that is what it is, could be a good thing for us. A shift from one angle to another. And if we embrace Our monoculture, then that is the best way to go. And I don’t see it interfering with Government, nor being ignorant of it. But what I would have a concern with, and ive mentioned it elsewhere, is monology.

So, if we have monoculturalism, will we have monology? I doubt it, the two don’t go together really, it would make for an odd mix in the social fabric. However, one could introduce the other, and that is where my concern lies. We must remain ever-vigilant against something which is not our own.

Now I can see Preston is a specialist in his field, and thus I am awarey of the discipline. The connection between Prestons position, and our social milieu, is one that should be carefully transversed.

I hope –Boaz- my indirectness does not mean anything.

cont:

This is where vigilance must be focused:
‘Balancing compassion and prudence, Brennan’s presentation is a strong defence of liberal democracy and the rule of law. In the process he explains his recent conversion to the cause of an Australian Bill of Rights because checks on the power of the state are no longer guaranteed.’

Any breach between egalitarianism and my rights must not be allowed to get out of hand. I’m not an advocate of a BoR. My evidence resides in the US.

I take issue with this, from Preston:
‘At the same time there is evidence of a systematic agenda among conservative Christians to emulate their American counterparts by imposing their views on the body politic’.

For various reasons and poles. Some phobic; others because I don’t agree with the ‘conservative’ label and its consequent implyment.

I could go on, and perhaps read others herein, but for now I hope this will suffice till perhaps next time.

Warnings about slippery slopes when allowing one religion or ideology to gain too much influence are all well and good but don't forget the other side of "Slippery Hill", the slippery slope of curtailing religious freedom. I don't think I need to illustrate where that can lead.

It may be a small patch of dry flat land but i think the best place to stand is the middle ground where there is a balance between one and the other, where there is freedom of religious expression in politics but also safeguards against the descrimination that could result if one were to obtain more influence.
Perhaps that is an arguement for a Bill of Rights although i haven't really made up my mind on that one yet.

What I do know is that as soon as you try to limit in some way a voice in the political forum because their ideas and opinions are rooted in an established religion or other ideology, which some above appear to support, you no longer have democracy, you have something else (atheocracy? seculocracy?).

I read in a devotional today of an ex Prime Minister of England (William Gladstone) who said 'I have known 95 great men in my time. And of these 87 were followers of the Bible. President John Quincy Adams declared: The Bible is the book above all others, to read at all ages, and in all conditions in life.' Friends no matter how hard you try you will never be able to take God or His Word out of the world He created. Friends this generation will pass and come up with different theories but God's Word will remain forever. Securalism (paganism dressed up) is the new kid on the block and won't last. It might win a few battles but will never win the war. This has already been won by Jesus Christ. One day every knee will bow and every tongue will confess He is Lord. Have a great day folk.

Good article, reaffirming my personal view that dinner party etiquette is a good model for more general social interaction :)

As for this:

"Secularism ? that gives us Bob Brown and the slippery moral slope he would take us down. (xxx rated porn, free heroin, but lots and LOTS of trees)"

That's the kind of utterance that induces momentary embarassed silence at a decent table, invariably attenuated rapidly by a witty anecdote, or idle speculation about the cricket :) Civilised people know how to do this - in fact, I dare say that it's part of our culture.

So by all means keep it up, Uncle Boazy. Australian cultural values provide for the tolerance of eccentric ideas, particularly among religious folk. That is why the idea of a 'multi-faith, no-faith' society seems to me to fit the society that generates such disparate characters as you and me.

Our vibrant Australian culture has always been irreverently secular, despite the efforts of various generations of 'god-botherers' to instil guilt and wowserism into the cultural mix.

We need religion in politics like we need more rules in cricket. Heaven forbid :)